The God Delusion - an Appraisal  - Chapter 9

Return to Main Contents Page

 

 

This is the Chapter 9 Page for the appraisal of the contents of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

    

 

Page Contents:

 

 

 

Title:

      

  

 

 

Chapter 9 Overview

"Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion"

 

Chapter 9 is divided into:

      

   

Chapter 9: Content & Comments

  

Comment:

In this chapter Richard deals in broad sweeps and it seems it will be better if, rather than detailing it quote by quote, instead I simply summarise each part and then comment accordingly.

         

   

Preamble

   

Comment:

CONTENT : The preamble in this chapter consists almost entirely in covering an account of a nineteenth century religious abduction by the Inquisition and the folly of baptising children to turn them into Christians and the outworkings of that.

 

COMMENT : There is little to say about this other than:

 

1. This is an account of religious misdemeanours of a particular part of the worldwide church and few of the rest of us (and many within that part of the church) would disagree with Richard's sentiments.

 

2. Having said that, how a limited group acted in history should in no way detract from the evidence that belief in God is no delusion. All we have said in previous chapters about distinguishing belief systems from the way people (or groups) act out their organisational expressions of those beliefs, applies here.

Return to top of page

   

    

Part 1: Physical & Mental Abuse

   

Comment:

CONTENT: Well the title says it all. Richard's thesis is that sexual abuse is bad – and mentions Catholic priests more in passing than in an outright attack – but mental abuse by scaring children with hell is worse. In passing he swipes at Ted Haggard but doesn't give any content why. He comments on Reconstructionists and a bad example of an American pastor scaring children with talks of hell. He then documents several cases of those who have clearly been abused as children with fear of hell, but who have since broken free of religion.

   

COMMENT : Few of us would disagree in principle with what Richard says about child abuse – mental or physical. His comments about Ted Haggard are guilt by association comments, and using extreme cases of abuse to try and make a point fails in the mind of any intelligent person who knows that individual cases of abuse do not condemn the rest of society (or the Church) who are perfectly normal. This Part does nothing to strengthen the title of the book.

Return to top of page

    

   

Part 2: In Defence of Children

  

Comment:

CONTENT : Richard opens with a discussion about Nicolas Humphrey's lecture and the implications of suggesting that freedom of speech should be maintained and censorship rejected for all except children. He moves on to talk about the remains of an Inca victim of sacrifice, female circumcision and the Amish

 

COMMENT : Richard moves in a difficult and contentious area of debate but one for which I suspect there will be little resolution. He speaks against the sacrifice of Inca children yet failed to see earlier in the book that God's condemnation of Canaan was for this very reason. His negative comments about female circumcision and multiculturalism, I would agree with entirely. I know on principle he will not like the Amish but I find their practices no worse than those of atheistic societies who do exactly the opposite and force children to grow up in entirely secular cultures.

Return to top of page

      

 

Part 3: An Educational Scandal

     

Comment:

CONTENT : This whole part is given over to a diatribe against one particular school, a Christian school that has the temerity in Richard's eyes to teach creation alongside evolution. He cites a lecture from the head of science in the school. Whether that head has gone too far only time will tell. When this man in turn cites other scientists who don't agree with Richard he derides them in most scorning terms.

  

COMMENT : We have already noted Richard's intolerance of anyone who does not agree with him and this school and its staff – or at least science staff – seem to him to have gone right over the top. Not being a biologist nor an archaeologist, I can only go on what others say, and there seem a good number who disagree with Richard. I conclude with a couple of comments from our Apologetics section:

   

Quotes from an article in The Times by Anjana Ahuja - 14th May 2007

"I have been wondering at Jon Sudbo, a Norwegian scientist who published a paper in The Lancet in 2005 showing that a certain class of painkillers cut the risk of oral cancer. Sudbo, it turned out, made the whole lot up."

   

i.e. scientists also aren't as pure white as Richard would like the religious world to be.

    

Since when was it a sin to be the best school in town? by Stephen Pollard

The Times - April 28, 2003

(After having commented on the school's 98% success rate he continues)

Ignore for a moment Emmanuel's exam results. Ignore the fact that, as a state school (it's a city academy, so Sir Peter, as the school's sponsor, works in tandem with the Government) it teaches the national curriculum — unlike plenty of what we might call “normal” schools. Ignore that it passed its Ofsted inspection with flying colours. Ignore that it is always heavily over-subscribed. And ignore (as many of its critics do, since this is rather inconvenient) that many of its pupils are Muslim.

Just think about this: is there any group more intolerant, more narrow-minded and more, yes, racist, than the liberal secularists and the old Labour Left who demand the abolition of schools such as Emmanuel College? ….By the way, I'm not a Christian, and I think creationism is nonsense. But what, in Heaven's name, has that got to do with it?

Have you noted what Richard does? He plays on their weakest point, what might possibly have been an over the top lecture (I don't know, I haven't seen it all and what was quoted wasn't off the wall except to Richard) and totally disregards the other 99% of the school's teaching which is obviously excellent.   

LINK to Appendix 4 - Quotes about Evolution

   

Return to top of page

    

   

Part 4: Consciousness-Raising Again

  

Comment:

CONTENT : Richard now manages to work himself up into a most silly frenzy. He doesn't like three four-year old children being referred to as Sikh, Muslim and Christian and the whole Part is Richard-against-labels.

    

COMMENT : I'm afraid for those of us who are not neurotic about Parenting but who seek to maintain a balance (see our own Parenting section if you will – not a religious reference in sight!), Richard's attacks on labels here appears infantile. What it completely ignores – or perhaps is angered by – is that the designations given here actually speak about different cultures in which the child is growing up. Now what is unfair about that? Richard dislikes religion because he can't see it, but I would suggest that the vast majority of parents and indeed schools that give little or no reference whatsoever to genuine spiritual aspects to life, actually are depriving their children. Those children who are taught religious truths are in a tiny minority in Britain. The vast majority are inculcated with secularism, which may suit Richard, but is biased, unscientific and downright dishonest.

  

Return to top of page

    

   

Part 5: Religious Education as a Part of Literary Culture

  

Comment:

CONTENT : In this final strange Part, Richard extols the Bible as a literary work that should be taught – excluding belief in God of course.

   

COMMENT : I would be delighted if the whole Bible was taught as a literary work, because in the process many people would realise that it is all about God and if you take Him from it, you are left with nothing at all. Richard's blindness is unable to see that, but then if he could, he would probably become a Christian.

   

Return to top of page

     

  

Summary-Conclusions

   

Preamble

 

This was all about a nineteenth century abduction, about which there is little to comment. Yet talk about a person or group does little to understand the majority.

   

  

Part 1: Physical and Mental Abuse

 

Physical abuse, Richard is less bothered about. Mental abuse, especially of children, in being scared by constant brow beating with talk of hell, he is more concerned about and we would agree. Use of excesses or extremists doesn't do anything for his argument.

    

   

Part 2: In Defence of Children

 

This is mostly discussional without conclusions; about protecting children. Use of extremes again.

    

Part 3: An Educational Scandal

 

Extreme antagonism is shown against a Christian school which dares to balance evolution with creation story. Simply reveals Richard's biases in the face of some of his colleagues' disagreements.

   

 

Part 4: Consciousness-Raising Again

 

Richard is against labelling children but he fails to acknowledge their culture or the secular culture that so many other families exist in.

 

   

Part 5: Religious Education as Part of a Literary Culture

 

Teach the Bible as literature is the message here. He fails to see that it is all about God and that reading it will lead many people to believe. Nice one!

 

 

Overall Comment:

 

This is an odd sort of chapter. It is a chapter of extremes. At one extreme Richard is exhibiting rational concern which is good. At the other extreme he is showing his antagonism against any who don't agree with him. He still continues to use extremists to bolster his arguments and it is this point which really takes away from anything good he is trying to say.

  

Return to top of page